From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2636639903E; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 20:04:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.9 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775505894; cv=none; b=ZXwilj2g2t2lUIUvnjWzHCcglraC4NBh1PjuIRqrxLeJYxU5LDPUSyEz2/PmfFIf0aSUabiy4Ux8BaT/t+hrRNILg4LFI9C5e0JGnA2scbN5UrWoMQqIOBTt9t7dNqE6svIJnBbVqR25DbZvhyydSOnTFDnV6iADGfMoDMsu0GM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775505894; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ojIHZDP+f5h9YZzJkoEFFrLIpPvoNKrQNngEZX64DCw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=M+BEF7NAyzKR1e2Rb3BpgDk0641gtX5gkjrC3XOUeKrAHt1dCqhtfvIERzDLsJxUBoTwvQCMt20ucRGHYDbCN23qpCTq5TTEMQrIYPDVx/iHNxsTajqw54Oi7oaq96/v/9ge2tVpkyN9GBzttgB+J+v4GJvokQn/W+mh/JOw4Dw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=QhpIKFb/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.9 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="QhpIKFb/" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1775505888; x=1807041888; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=ojIHZDP+f5h9YZzJkoEFFrLIpPvoNKrQNngEZX64DCw=; b=QhpIKFb/Gr36ykNodnWKd68CgUf+A0soKlrRXBx3kQukzBIVoiGVtfYt uh10BoHpbr6tI9qb6VlaAByv1R13AAQsbldUmn2pN93uSvyf0w/4WrNDq nv90Jx0Z0aquxbhy97VkzXSKzPdWi/Mn9zlgCI9IIxlsf9uCiKzI6vAU0 IE4aV4m5pYqo03G4lyM9AZA7Rwr9sADEYSIIAV7WqLheCIj+u1Uf42zbD UhfW7ymP/5zu39qny4VWInbJ1M37Add8PkvGTQ1zWFDEmVSWcI4/Zc74r IeFB8WbtmtfnGlcXJoYVT4dbXgBDzYHaa/7+oFp1Y4xDr0sp8N549tT0A Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: IavVigF8R42vBhNnPuUEFA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 0jOBsG5SQleazelgtlGcHQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11751"; a="99085757" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,164,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="99085757" Received: from fmviesa008.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.148]) by orvoesa101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Apr 2026 13:04:46 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: voTqQZCMRBmcM0iAxyHlmg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 6yjjFsngSoScEYIXMSEw4A== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,164,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="225211597" Received: from dalessan-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.244.73]) by fmviesa008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Apr 2026 13:04:44 -0700 Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 23:04:41 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Sanjay Chitroda Cc: jic23@kernel.org, dlechner@baylibre.com, nuno.sa@analog.com, andy@kernel.org, kees@kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] iio: ssp_sensors: factor out pending list add/remove helpers Message-ID: References: <20260406080852.2727453-1-sanjayembedded@gmail.com> <20260406080852.2727453-4-sanjayembedded@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260406080852.2727453-4-sanjayembedded@gmail.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Mon, Apr 06, 2026 at 01:38:50PM +0530, Sanjay Chitroda wrote: > The SSP SPI transfer path manipulates the pending message list in > multiple places, each time open-coding the same locking and list > operations. > > Re-factor the pending list add and delete logic into small helper > functions to avoid duplication and simplify transfer flow to follow. > > No functional change intended. Suggested-by? ... > +static inline void ssp_pending_add(struct ssp_data *data, > + struct ssp_msg *msg) Make it rather: static inline void ssp_pending_add(struct ssp_data *data, struct ssp_msg *msg) { if (msg->length) return; ... } > +{ > + mutex_lock(&data->pending_lock); > + list_add_tail(&msg->list, &data->pending_list); > + mutex_unlock(&data->pending_lock); > +} > + > +static inline void ssp_pending_del(struct ssp_data *data, > + struct ssp_msg *msg) > +{ > + mutex_lock(&data->pending_lock); > + list_del(&msg->list); > + mutex_unlock(&data->pending_lock); > +} (in the same manner) ... > - if (!use_no_irq) { > - mutex_lock(&data->pending_lock); > - list_add_tail(&msg->list, &data->pending_list); > - mutex_unlock(&data->pending_lock); > - } > + if (!use_no_irq) > + ssp_pending_add(data, msg); ...and then it will become ssp_pending_add(data, msg); > status = ssp_check_lines(data, true); > if (status < 0) { > - if (!use_no_irq) { > - mutex_lock(&data->pending_lock); > - list_del(&msg->list); > - mutex_unlock(&data->pending_lock); > - } > + if (!use_no_irq) > + ssp_pending_del(data, msg); > goto _error_locked; > } ... > if (wait_for_completion_timeout(done, > msecs_to_jiffies(timeout)) == > 0) { > - mutex_lock(&data->pending_lock); > - list_del(&msg->list); > - mutex_unlock(&data->pending_lock); > + ssp_pending_del(data, msg); > > data->timeout_cnt++; > return -ETIMEDOUT; Also rewrite this to follow the style (missing {}, better indentation): if (msg->length && done && !wait_for_completion_timeout(done, msecs_to_jiffies(timeout))) { ssp_pending_del(data, msg); data->timeout_cnt++; return -ETIMEDOUT; } And kill that use_no_urq altogether. Move the comment rather to a helper(s). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko